Argument for GOD from human agency and it's fundamental nature

By Atheist Answers (Facebook Page)

This article will consist of two deductive arguments, and the expounding of the premises in each argument.

It will be in the the form of a deductive argument followed by the explanation of the premises, before moving onto the next argument.

(Argument 1: Philosophical agency)

(1) There is a true fundamental agency which each human possess; this means the terms "I", "you" and "We" are logically and rationally valid.

(2) Philosophical materialism can not give any rational or logical justification of a true agency ("I", "you" and "We") when applying it's own reductionist epistemic criteria.

(3) Therefore philosophical materialism is false and we have an immaterial aspect of human agency.

Review Of Premises

Premise 1: Reviewed

Human agency is something we intuitively assume as properly basic. We assume there is a fundamental "I" in this universe. It is an existential qualia we call "self awareness", which we assume is a true informative state of reality and the way things really are.

Premise 2: Reviewed

Philosophical Materialism is the philosophical assumption that the only thing in reality which exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance, and reality is identical with the actually occurring states of energy and matter.

The problem with this world view and accounting for agency with in it is this; according to the first law of thermodynamics, energy and matter can neither be created or destroyed, they can only be converted. So that means everything in reality is just a fluctuation of matter. So according to the first law, when "I" was "born" there was no new matter or energy in the universe, and when I die there will be no less. Also those atoms which compose my body were once parts of inanimate objects, vegetational life, animal life and even human life (the way the biosphere works you have most likely drank at some point Albert Einstein &\or Isaac Newton etc..).

So you see the many "I's" (if there is only physical ontology for categorization) interchangeably mixing ontology together, puts into question the "I" being anything fundamental if the only ontology we have is matter in motion. Then when "I" "die" every atom will go into plants, worms, birds and men (sharing many more "I's").

Also on top of this, in my supposed "life", "I" am also just a fluctuation of recycling and changing atoms. This leaves no logically categorical "I's" or "You's" under the philosophical materialist paradigm.

Premise 3: Reviewed

If there was a possible "I", it was either existent at the birth of the universe and has never gone out of existence, or it never existed. As the "I" we are talking about is finite, the only logical conclusion can be it never existed. But if we take premise (1) as properly basic then I do have a true fundamental "I" and it is philosophical materialism which is false, and I therefore out of logical necessity must have an immaterial aspect to my agency.

(Argument 2: the fundamental nature of human agency)

(1) Our conscious self awareness is fundamental (meaning not an illusion, but ontologically is as experienced to be), and so are our agencies other existential qualias (like self awareness ("I"), intentionality and will for example).

(2) We humans are finite Beings (we had a beginning).

(3) Therefore there is a fundamental non-finite (eternal) Being.

Premise 1: Reviewed

Under this premise the property of self awareness is fundamental. It can not be based on other properties of non self (or we have the same problem as we did under philosophical materialism). There is a lot more I could say on this subject, but I will refrain. I have written a separate article called

"Epistemic argument for GOD; why we can not perceive reality unless GOD exists..."

which touches more on the subject of this first premise, if any one is interested in further reading.

Premise 2: Reviewed

It is clear my unique "I-ness" had a beggining. But for the property of "I-ness" it's self to be be fundemental and autonomous it must be non-finite (eternal) and a basic property of reality.

In analytical philosophy it works like this:

(Side argument 1: cosmological contingency)

(1) Ex nihilo nihil fit (from nothing comes nothing)

(2) So because there is anything, there has always been something

(3) Therefore something is eternal (eternality has chronos but not kairos)

To understand this further, I have written a seperate article called

"Who made GOD; and the necessity of HIS existence\nature?"

Premise 3: Reviewed

Now this is who a Christian would call GOD.

To understand why this fundemental eternal "I" would have to be the GOD of the Bible, please read a seperate article I have written called

"Why the Christian GOD and not other gods..."

Possible Contentions

The polemic I give in the above article is a deductive argument. That means if the premises are true the conclusion (logically) has to be true (as long as the argument is valid).

So unless a premise is disproved, there is no argument against the conclusion.

That is how deductive arguments work. So if you disagree with the argument, please address which premise you disagree with and why.

Links to the other stated articles

"Epistemic argument for GOD; why we can not perceive reality unless GOD exists..."

https://www.facebook.com/notes/atheist-answers/epistemic-argument-for-god-why-we-can-not-perceive-reality-unless-god-exists/1405553762999302

"Who made GOD; and the necessity of HIS existence\nature?"

https://www.facebook.com/notes/atheist-answers/who-made-god-and-the-necessity-of-his-existencenature/1401941063360572

"Why the Christian GOD and not other gods..."

https://www.facebook.com/notes/atheist-answers/why-the-christian-god-and-not-other-gods/1401947760026569